• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does this video explain conservatism accurately?

Does this video portray conservatism accurately?


  • Total voters
    16
"The belief that you can get something for nothing ... that you can get the government to take something by force from other people and give it to you, like the money for your healthcare, for example. Has been tried many, many times before and has failed everytime."

I gather he wasn't talking about George Bush forcing Democracy onto the Iraqi people or Mitt Romney passing the same healthcare plan in Massechussetts?

He certainly wasn't talking about the New Deal, the Great Society and Obamacare.
 
So Tea Partiers hate big government. They don't admit they get ecstatic about the thought of big religion replacing it..........
 
So Tea Partiers hate big government. They don't admit they get ecstatic about the thought of big religion replacing it..........

this agnostic is trying to understand your point
 
"Proving/showing" a fundamental principle like natural right exists is the same basic task as proving/showing that God exists. There is nothing concrete that can "prove" its existence. It is either believed or it's not.

For those who do not believe in any sort of natural/inalienable rights, government is God, as it is considered infallible, and the individual is amoral.

IOW, it is unprovable and can only be accepted as a matter of faith.

Too bad (for you) our government is not bound by your religious beliefs.
 
IOW, it is unprovable and can only be accepted as a matter of faith.

Too bad (for you) our government is not bound by your religious beliefs.

I'm guessing you know a great deal about this country. :cool:
 
this agnostic is trying to understand your point

My point is the Tea Party, and conservatives are very vocal about what they are against, but they become, of necessity, evasive about what they like, because they aren't for freedom, they are just against anyone running the show but themselves........................
 
My point is the Tea Party, and conservatives are very vocal about what they are against, but they become, of necessity, evasive about what they like, because they aren't for freedom, they are just against anyone running the show but themselves........................

the ones I know are about freedom. YMMV
 
My point is the Tea Party, and conservatives are very vocal about what they are against, but they become, of necessity, evasive about what they like, because they aren't for freedom, they are just against anyone running the show but themselves........................

I don't think the Tea Party wants anything except smaller government that's fiscally responsible. We do seem to waste a lot of taxpayer money, and that does need to be stopped. We cannot keep going on the same path...the debt clock shows us that! :shock:

It's time for me to call it a day. It's been fun, but I have too much to do tomorrow, and I need to be ready to face it! :thumbs:

G'nite! Be well.
 
That doesn't mean it's not an inalienable right. That just means there are some countries which suppress certain inalienable rights, such as the example you offer.

And I don't know about you, but I'm in the U.S. where I'm free to exercise my religion without worries of government interference because that is an inalienable right and the U.S. respects that.
While your beliefs may be a "natural" right (if you prefer "inalienable" it doesn't matter), acting on those beliefs is not. Previously, I left it off the list of "natural" rights but I'll have to think about it some more.
 
Is that why they carried all those signs saying "Keep your govt hands off my Medicare"?

When I saw a couple Tea Party people on the news, even the smarter ones were coming out with nonsensical statements...........................
 
This is a bit over the top. Progressivism equals communism and mass murdering? Getting something for nothing from the government? No. He's got the main points of conservatism right I would say, but everything else is a bit silly.

More like communism and mass murder are the result of taking progressivism too seriously.
 
When I saw a couple Tea Party people on the news, even the smarter ones were coming out with nonsensical statements...........................

If a party is defined by the intelligence of who votes for it then the Democratic party is realllyyyyyyyyyy in trouble...... ;).
 
If a party is defined by the intelligence of who votes for it then the Democratic party is realllyyyyyyyyyy in trouble...... ;).

Gee, aren't you the poster who started a thread complaining about posters who engage in name-calling instead of civil debate?

I didn't know your thread was so self-referential
 
Gee, aren't you the poster who started a thread complaining about posters who engage in name-calling instead of civil debate?

I didn't know your thread was so self-referential

Hey now, at least I gave a wink along with it.

That automatically makes it okay.
 
If a party is defined by the intelligence of who votes for it then the Democratic party is realllyyyyyyyyyy in trouble...... ;).

oh come on-Obama Phone woman is a mensa and all those clowns Howard Stern interviewed (what do you think of Obama being against abortion and a member of the NRA) were just aberrations!! all those gimme gimme gimme obamabots were just pretending to have the IQs of iguanas
 
Then we are talking about different versions. Progressivism tends to favor greater government intervention in daily life, which leads to socialism, which, according to Marx, is only a step towards communism.

According to Marx Communism is a step towards Socialism not the other way around.

Progressivism doesn't necessarily lead to socialism the same way that libertarianism doesn't necessarily lead to Anarchy. We both know that these don't automatically lead to their extreme's

A great book which describes progressivism fairly well is called the "Politics of Hope" by Johnathan Sacks I highly suggest reading it.
Amazon.com: politics of hope
 
If a party is defined by the intelligence of who votes for it then the Democratic party is realllyyyyyyyyyy in trouble...... ;).


Something tells me alot of the rancor I hear coming from the Right these days is actually frustration arising from the inability to dupe anyone beyond the base...........................
 
According to Marx Communism is a step towards Socialism not the other way around.

Progressivism doesn't necessarily lead to socialism the same way that libertarianism doesn't necessarily lead to Anarchy. We both know that these don't automatically lead to their extreme's

A great book which describes progressivism fairly well is called the "Politics of Hope" by Johnathan Sacks I highly suggest reading it.
Amazon.com: politics of hope

huh? No, socialism was a step to communism. Communism to Marx was the ultimate classless, moneyless society where everyone voluntarily produces what they can and consume what they need. It was the transition from "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work" to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Communism was the final stage to Marx.

Progressivism may not ultimately lead to socialism, but they both share common roots and ideal principles. I sincerely never believe Rush or Beck or any of those nutcases when they said that the liberals were just Marxist lovers and socialists. But when I actually read up on Marx and some of his theories, I was quite shocked at just how similar his theories are to modern day left-wing politics, even if it modern liberals have watered it down somewhat.
 
Something tells me alot of the rancor I hear coming from the Right these days is actually frustration arising from the inability to dupe anyone beyond the base...........................

Strange, what makes you think we are the ones who are being duped?
 
Strange, what makes you think we are the ones who are being duped?



The Right has succeeded in divorcing itself from everything North of a certain line on the whole planet, let alone this country.......................Except for Russia, which remains a hopeless cesspit......................
 
huh? No, socialism was a step to communism. Communism to Marx was the ultimate classless, moneyless society where everyone voluntarily produces what they can and consume what they need. It was the transition from "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work" to "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Communism was the final stage to Marx.

Progressivism may not ultimately lead to socialism, but they both share common roots and ideal principles. I sincerely never believe Rush or Beck or any of those nutcases when they said that the liberals were just Marxist lovers and socialists. But when I actually read up on Marx and some of his theories, I was quite shocked at just how similar his theories are to modern day left-wing politics, even if it modern liberals have watered it down somewhat.

Marx's "Socialism" described in the transitions of Communism is not actual Socialism, but just a title Marx used for his thesis. Marx could never clearly describe true Socialism and the closest he came was in the final stage of Communism he described.

Socialism itself is still a broader subject than just Marx's and Engle's manifesto. Effectively Marx's perfect Communism is equal to a general perfect Socialism.

So you were right in the specifics to Marx, I was just thinking too broadly.

Well every moderate step you could say is a watered down version of it's extreme alternative. I see many parallels to Anarchy and libertarianism just as you see parallels between Progressivism and Socialism. I still appreciate freedom and believe it is something that we should preserve and cherish, but at the same time I feel we need to take appropriate actions to make sure the irresponsible actions of a few don't have negatives consequences for the many.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom